Corrientes eticas liberales

philosophy
courses toc_depth: 1

This article is part of the Basic Liberalism Course -> Module 2: Liberalism and its ethical foundations

Definition of ethics

How do you realize that a political idea is good or bad? How can you be sure that you are really doing something good or correct?

What is it that makes an idea and action good or bad, right or wrong?, here is where ethics arises:

The discipline in charge of analyzing good and bad is ethics, specifically within philosophy.
Ethics studies in a rational and systematic way the concepts of good and evil, moral norms, and the principles that guide human behavior, seeking logical foundations to determine what is right or wrong.

Determining if an action is good and bad is relatively easy with simple situations, but not with complex ones.

Moral and ethics

The words moral and ethics are often used with the same meaning, however, they do not mean the same thing.

Morality is the set of customs accepted by a society at a given time. All actions that go against these customs/norms established in that society are considered immoral, although perhaps they are ethically good.

For example, in many societies it was morally accepted to have slaves, however this is something ethically bad.

In this sense, in this wiki only ethical norms matter, moral ones do not. Here we will not talk about morality.

What others thought about ethics

Everyone internally knows what they consider good or bad, however, it is very important to know what others thought who dedicated a large part of their lives to the study of ethics, to broaden our vision of the topic and know what is being talked about with authority and knowledge.

The classification of ethical ideas (branches/currents) is more complex than what we will show below, but we will do it this way to simplify the topic. Many of these currents may not be classified as "liberal" however, in the writer's opinion, they do have to do with liberalism.

Ethics of virtue: Aristotle
IusNaturalism: Natural law or right, which is the basis of libertarian ethics.
Deontology: Duty, what should be: Kant
Utilitarianism: Maximum benefit for the majority, from Mill, Bentham, etc.
Relativisms, Existentialisms and others:
- Currents that are not based on good and bad, but rather on new values that improve the human being.
- On this page we will only talk about Albert Camus.

There are many philosophers and philosophical ideas that on this page we will not name, although we will do so in the philosophy category in the wiki.

Note: Here only a summary of the idea will be shown.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) (Summary)

The Ethics of Virtue

Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle's central work on morality and the good life. In it he maintains that the ultimate end of human life is eudaimonia, translated as happiness, human flourishing or fulfilled life. This happiness is not momentary pleasure, but a way of living that allows the human being to fully realize their rational nature. According to Aristotle, we achieve eudaimonia by practicing the virtues, which are stable dispositions to act well.

Aristotle explains that moral virtue consists in finding the golden mean between two vicious extremes: for example, between recklessness and cowardice is courage; between extravagance and stinginess is generosity. Virtues are not possessed by nature, but are acquired through habitual practice, in the same way one learns an art. Along with moral virtues, there are also intellectual virtues, such as practical wisdom (phronesis), which guides action and allows correct choice.

The book also highlights the importance of friendship, justice and the contemplative life. Aristotle maintains that the human being is a social being, and that a good life requires deep bonds and a just community. He concludes by pointing out that the highest form of happiness is achieved in contemplative activity, where reason is fully exercised. Taken together, the work is a guide to living well, based on the development of character, reason and human relationships.

Aristotle shows a personal point of view, proposes that if one changes, living a life in virtue, the environment changes.

Critique of Aristotle

The idea that human nature has an inherent end or purpose (telos) (eudaimonia) and that morality is based on achieving it is questioned.
His idea of well-being is opposed to modern ideas of happiness, often linked to consumption or subjective well-being.
Determining "the mean" is very complicated on certain occasions.

IusNaturalism (Natural Law) (Summary)

The IusNaturalism (also called Natural Law or Natural Right) is one of the oldest and most persistent currents in the philosophy of law, ethics and politics. It affirms that there exist principles of justice, rights or ethical norms universal, immutable and superior to human laws (positive law), derived from human nature, reason or an eternal divine law.

For a iusnaturalist, the validity of a law does not depend on a King, Emperor, Dictator, Sacred Book or Parliament having approved it, but on it being just and respecting human nature.

This idea is what historically allowed challenging absolute power: if the King dictates a law that goes against human nature, that law is invalid.

IusNaturalism has 2 branches, a Christian theological one and a rational/secular one, both arrive at the same concepts. Natural law is not a written code, but a set of principles derived from reason and the observation of human nature. With the question "What is good for the human being?", one arrives at a list similar to the one below, which represent the natural laws:

Preservation of life
Procreation and care of offspring
Liberty (which implies avoiding harm to others)
Private property (the fruit of your labor)
Pursuit of knowledge and truth
Promotion of the common good
Justice and respect for contracts (to be able to live in society)

Criticisms of IusNaturalism

Vagueness and lack of definition of the principles: The principles of natural law (such as "do good and avoid evil" or "sociability") are too abstract and general, which makes their practical application difficult without subjective interpretations. There is no universal consensus on what constitutes "human nature" or the "good".
Cultural and historical relativism: The principles of natural law, although presented as universal, often reflect the cultural, religious or historical values of a specific era or society, which questions their supposed universality.
Difficulty in resolving practical conflicts: Natural laws, being general principles, do not offer clear mechanisms for resolving specific conflicts or concrete cases, which limits their usefulness in legal practice.

Response from iusnaturalism:

Vagueness allows flexibility to adapt the principles to historical contexts.
The connection between law and morality is necessary to avoid unjust laws (for example, Nazi laws, slavery, etc.).
The principles of natural law have inspired advances in human rights.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1755) (Summary)

Deontology (Duty)

The ethical thought of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) focuses on deontology (deon = "duty"), a ethical theory based on duty and reason, not on consequences.

His main idea is the categorical imperative, which establishes that we must act according to rules that can be universalized (at all times and places) without contradiction and that respect people as ends in themselves, not as means.

Categorical imperative:
- "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Your actions must be consistent with principles that everyone could follow. E.g.: Do not lie, do not kill, under no circumstance or excuse.
  - E.g.: A person tells a lie to get out of a tight spot. Kant would call for a thought experiment: What would happen if everyone, by natural law, had to lie whenever they were in a tight spot?
Autonomy and dignity:
- "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end".
- Humanity is in itself the end of things, not a tool to achieve ends. This is the basis of modern Human Rights. For Kant, people have "dignity", not "price", they are not objects to reach an end.
Reason as guide:
- Ethics is based on pure reason, not on emotions, not on desires, not on preferences or tastes, not on results, but reason must analyze all these aspects.
- Reason is the source of ethics. Each person, being rational, can discover what is good and act according to laws that they themselves give (autonomy).
- The Categorical Imperative is, possibly, the most famous tool in the history of ethics. Kant wanted to find a "moral law" that did not depend on religion or feelings, but purely on reason.
Duty above all:
- What is important is not the result, but to act out of duty, because we recognize that something is the right thing.
- For Kant, consequences can be unpredictable; the only thing we control is our intention.

Kant emphasizes universality, rationality and respect for humanity as the basis of ethics.

Criticisms of Kant's ethics

Kant is one of those with the most criticisms, I will name only a few:

Too abstract: It is criticized for being too abstract and formal. The categorical imperative ("act according to the maxim that you can want as a universal law") does not offer concrete guides for specific situations, which can make its practical application difficult.
Disconnection from emotions: Kant prioritizes reason over emotions (which for him have no importance)
Disconnection from consequences: Kant does not take into account the results of actions, only the intention.
Too rigid: Kant demands that morality be absolutely rational and universal, without exceptions. This can lead to absurd or inhuman conclusions (Example: not lying to save someone's life). This rigidity does not consider the complexity of human circumstances or conflicts between duties.

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Utilitarianism proposes that an action is right if it maximizes happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. It is a consequentialist doctrine: the ethical value of an action depends on its results.

"Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill is a fundamental book in ethics that defends the principle of utility or of the greatest happiness. The central idea is that actions are morally right insofar as they tend to promote the happiness of the majority.

The ethical standard is not the happiness of the individual, but the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people".

According to Mill, happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, unlike other utilitarians, he introduces the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
Intellectual pleasures are more valuable than purely physical or sensory pleasures (lower). A person who knows both will always prefer the higher pleasure.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Problem of Injustice and Individual Rights: The most serious objection. Since utilitarianism only focuses on maximizing total well-being (if we expressed it mathematically it is the result of: happiness divided by pain), it can justify the violation of fundamental rights or the imposition of great sacrifices on a minority, as long as the benefit for the majority is sufficient. Example: killing one person to save 100.
Depersonalization: Utilitarianism treats people as numbers in a total sum of well-being, not as ends in themselves.

Relativism of Albert Camus

Ethical relativism holds that moral judgments (what is good, bad, right or wrong) are not universal, but depend on the cultural, social, historical or individual context. There are no absolute moral truths; what is "good" varies according to circumstances. However, none of the authors approve of an absolute relativism. None justify evil for itself or "anything goes", each relativist current has very absolute limits regarding the issue of evil.

These ideas/branches/theories emerged as a complement or evolution to the absolutist ideas of good and evil, right and wrong, seeing them from another point of view

Albert Camus (1913-1960)

Albert Camus has a clear relationship —although indirect and non-militant— with liberalism, especially with its ethical and anti-authoritarian dimension. He was not a “classical liberal” in the sense of Locke, Smith or Mises (he did not write economic treatises nor explicitly defend free market capitalism), but his thought converges in several key points with liberalism and libertarianism, and clashes head-on with Sartrean Marxism.

Existentialism (solidary rebellion before the Absurd)

The starting point: the absurd

Camus posits that life lacks a transcendental or divine purpose (the "absurd" arises from the conflict between our desire for meaning and the indifference and silence of the universe). Man desires an absolute meaning, but the universe is indifferent. That contradiction is the absurd.

→ Camus's ethics does not start from God, from History or from any ideology, but from that naked experience of the absurd.

Rejection of the two false exits
- Physical suicide: suppress one's own life (for Camus, capitulation).
- Philosophical suicide: invent a meaning (religion, Marxism, Sartrean existentialism).
Both are “betrayals” of lucidity.
The only dignified response: Rebellion (Ethics)

Rebellion (Ethics) is saying “no” to the absurd and at the same time “yes” to life.

«I rebel, therefore we exist».

Rebellion (ethics):
- promises nothing, but maintains human dignity.
- is not an act of destruction, but a commitment to justice, solidarity and the defense of human dignity in the face of oppression or nonsense.
- implies saying "no" to the unacceptable, but also affirming shared values.
- is a cry that affirms that there is something in the human being that "is worth defending".
Three ethical values that are born from Rebellion
- Lucidity: look at reality without lying to oneself.
- Freedom: reject all voluntary servitude.
- Solidarity: the «I rebel» becomes «we rebel». The human destiny is common.
Measure and limit (the great theme of maturity)

From 1950 Camus criticizes revolutions that, to create a future paradise, accept killing innocents today.

→ Rebellion must have ethical limits:

«I cannot accept that one kills in the name of what prevents me from killing».

That is why he rejects both terrorism (of the FLN in Algeria) and totalitarianism.
The ethics of the "man without God"

Without transcendent hope, the only possible sanctity is sanctity without God: doing good here and now, without expecting reward.

Examples in his works:
- Doctor Rieux in The Plague (struggle without hope, but struggle).
- The judge-penitent in The Fall is the opposite: moral hypocrisy.
Mediterranean ethics: the balance between opposites

Camus always seeks the Greek “measure”:
- Neither nihilism nor absolute idealism.
- Neither cynicism nor fanaticism.
- Love life as it is (with its beauty and its pain) without asking it to be something else.

His emblematic phrase: «In the midst of winter I finally discovered that there was within me an invincible summer».

Camus's ethics is a call to live intensely and to act with honesty and solidarity in a world without transcendent meaning, making justice and human dignity the only absolutes.

To live with lucidity in a world without meaning, to rebel without hatred, and to help one's neighbor without expecting anything in return.

That is the morality of Albert Camus: an atheist, tragic and profoundly human ethics that is summarized in the phrase of Doctor Rieux in The Plague: «What is learned in misfortune is that there are more things worthy of admiration than of contempt in men».

Criticisms of the ethics of Albert Camus

Lack of normative depth:
- Unlike Kant or utilitarianism, Camus does not provide clear rules or criteria for moral action. His idea of rebellion as resistance to oppression is inspiring, but lacks specificity to apply it systematically
Ambiguity in the idea of “rebellion” :
- The “rebellion” of Camus can be interpreted in opposite ways: Is it peaceful moral resistance or political revolution? or When does it cease to be just and become violence?
- Marxist thinkers (like Jean-Paul Sartre, after his break with Camus) accused him of political vagueness and of avoiding real revolutionary commitment.
Unrealistic moral idealism:
- Although he values compassion and measure, Camus does not offer a practical guide to resolve concrete ethical dilemmas. How to apply “measure” before a tyrant or a war?
- Political and ethical philosophers see him as morally inspiring, but theoretically insufficient. His ethics moves, but does not guide with clarity the action.

Examples of some ethical dilemmas

I show you here some limit and best-known ethical situations, to show what each current would think:

The dilemma of the benevolent liar
The trolley dilemma

The dilemma of the benevolent liar

The dilemma of the benevolent liar (or "lie dilemma") poses a situation in which a person must decide whether to lie to save a life or tell the truth and cause harm.

Thinker/Current	Response	Reason
Aristotle (Ethics of virtue)	Probably would lie	Aristotle would evaluate the lie according to the golden mean and virtue. Lying to save a life could reflect compassion and justice, as long as it does not become a habit that corrupts character. The decision depends on the context and prudence.
Iusnaturalism (Aquinas/Locke)	Probably would lie	Religious iusnaturalists should prioritize truth as a divine principle, while "non-religious / secular" ones (like Locke) would emphasize the protection of natural rights such as life..
Immanuel Kant (Deontologism)	Would not lie	Kant would oppose lying, even to save a life, since it would violate the categorical imperative: "Act according to a maxim that you can want to become a universal law". Lying destroys trust and contradicts rationality. Note: There is an option here that is not taken into account and that is the possibility of not answering
Utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill)	Would lie	Utilitarianism would justify lying if it maximizes general well-being. Saving a life outweighs the harm of a one-time lie, as long as it does not erode social trust in the long term.
Albert Camus (Absurdism)	Probably would lie	Camus would support lying as an act of rebellion against injustice and the absurd. Protecting a life reflects human solidarity and commitment to dignity.

Additional notes

Ethical tensions: The dilemma highlights conflicts between deontologism (Kant, who prohibits lying on principle, although allows not answering), utilitarianism (which prioritizes consequences), and contextual approaches like virtue ethics (Aristotle). Iusnaturalism, as we discussed previously, can be ambiguous due to the vagueness of its principles, but tends to prioritize the preservation of life.
Context of the dilemma: The response can vary depending on the severity of the harm (for example, lying to save someone from genocide versus minor harm). This especially affects contextual approaches like those of Aristotle and Camus.
The table shows how Kant and some iusnaturalists oppose lying by absolute principles, while utilitarianism and Camus tend to justify it if it protects a greater good or reflects authenticity. Aristotle offers contextual responses, depending on the virtue or the will of the person.

The trolley dilemma

The trolley dilemma poses a situation in which an out-of-control trolley is heading towards five people tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to divert it to another track where there is only one person. The question is: Should the lever be pulled, sacrificing one life to save five, or do nothing, letting the five die?

Thinker/Current	Response	Reason
Aristotle (Ethics of virtue)	Probably would pull the lever	Aristotle would evaluate the action according to the golden mean and virtue. Saving five lives could reflect justice and prudence, as long as it does not become a habit that ignores the value of individual life. The decision would depend on the context and the character of the person.
Iusnaturalism	Probably would not pull the lever	Iusnaturalism prioritizes the preservation of life as a universal principle, but intentionally sacrificing one life could violate the principle of not harming (Aquinas) or natural rights (Locke). However, some iusnaturalists could justify saving five if the common good is considered.
Immanuel Kant (Deontologism)	Would not pull the lever	Kant would consider pulling the lever as an immoral act, since it implies using the person on the other track as a means to an end (saving five), violating the categorical imperative: "Treat people as ends in themselves". Doing nothing avoids direct responsibility for killing. The right thing here would be to prevent anyone from dying.
Utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill)	Would pull the lever	Utilitarianism seeks to maximize general well-being. Sacrificing one life to save five produces the greatest good (least harm). Bentham would prioritize the quantitative calculation, while Mill would consider the quality of well-being, but both would support the action.
Albert Camus (Absurdism)	Probably would pull the lever	Camus would value saving lives as an act of rebellion against the absurd and injustice. Protecting five people reflects human solidarity, although he would recognize the tragedy of sacrificing a life.

Additional notes

Ethical tensions: The trolley dilemma highlights conflicts between utilitarianism (maximize the good), deontologism (absolute rules, like not killing), and contextual approaches like virtue ethics (Aristotle). Iusnaturalism partially aligns with Kant by prioritizing universal principles, but its emphasis on life can lead to utilitarian decisions in some cases.
Context of the dilemma: The "fat man" variant (pushing a person to stop the trolley) could alter the responses, since it implies a direct action rather than an indirect one (pulling a lever). For example, Kant would be even firmer in not acting, and Aristotle might doubt more due to the active nature of the act.
Iusnaturalism: Religious Iusnaturalists like Aquinas might prioritize not intervening (respecting the sanctity of individual life), while non-religious/secular ones, like Locke, might consider the common good and pull the lever.

Conclusion

Utilitarians and practical approaches (Camus) tend to pull the lever, while Kant and some iusnaturalists oppose it by absolute principles. Aristotle offers contextual responses, depending on character, authenticity or the freedom of the person.

Basic Liberalism Course

Previous Topic		Next topic
<-Definition of Liberalism	<-->	Ethical Base of Liberalism->

To comment or discuss this article on X

Categories: Home -> Philosophy

Last updated: 2025-05

| | | |